Synthesis Report Q5. A5. Q6. A6. Q7. A7. When will the Synthesis Report be prepared, be subject to review, and be released? The IPCC has not yet reached firm decisions on the manner in which the Synthesis Report will be prepared.. We understand that the IPCC intends to begin preparation of the Synthesis Report as soon as initial drafts of the working groups reports are completed, that the draft Synthesis Report (both the summary for policymakers and the underlying report) should be submitted for simultaneous expert and government review as soon as possible after the working group reports have been adopted, and that the Synthesis Report should be released as closely as possible to release of the working group reports, probably in mid- to late 2001. Because the Synthesis Report will synthesize and integrate information contained in the reports of the IPCC's three working groups, it is inevitable that there will be some delay between finalizing those working group reports and finalizing the Synthesis Report. Will the Synthesis Report be prepared as part of the Third Assessment Report, and if not, what will be its purpose? Yes, the Synthesis Report will be prepared as part of the IPCC's Third Assessment Is the IPCC creating a new report that is separate from the assessment? No, because the Synthesis Report will synthesize and integrate information contained in the reports of the IPCC's three working groups it will necessarily be part of the IPCC's Third Assessment. Designation of IPCC Rules of Procedure as “Guidelines” Q8. Why are the IPCC Rules of Procedure proposed to be designated as “Guidelines”, and does this change mean or imply that such “Guidelines” are not binding on the IPCC, its Chairman or the lead authors? A8. As noted in the response to the first question above, the IPCC adopted rules of procedure to help organize and structure its scientific and technical assessment effort and to avoid ad hoc decisions. Once adopted, the IPCC (including its Chairman and the lead authors) seeks to follow its rules or guidelines so as to conduct its work in an orderly manner, to provide experts and governments sufficient time in which to review and comment on IPCC drafts, and to promote transparency. First and foremost, however, the IPCC is a scientific assessment effort undertaken by over 2,000 of the world's pre-eminent scientists and experts, nearly all of whom contribute their time and expertise without compensation. The IPCC's rules or guidelines are Q9. A9. As we understand it, the proposed re-designation from IPCC Procedures to IPCC Guidelines is intended to indicate that, while such procedures are expected to be observed, insistence on meticulous compliance would be inappropriate given the massive scale and complexity of the IPCC assessment effort. Still, as noted, the IPCC has a strong interest in ensuring that its procedures are carefully observed because any material lapse inevitably invites criticism of the FPCC and can call its work into question. This interest is the same, whether the title is procedures or guidelines. If the IPCC's Guidelines are binding, what does this proposed change in title mean or imply, and does the United States support this change? The United States supports the change because, as noted above, it has no practical significance with respect to the rights of parties or the integrity of the IPCC process. Further, the United States believes that technical or minor procedural irregularities that do not materially affect the integrity of the process should not be used to call into question the work produce of the IPCC. Since I last submitted questions to you on August 7, 1998, which are yet unanswered, about The first document [IPCC-XTV/Doc. 5 (25-VIII-1998)], submitted by the Chairman of the "Ad- "Proposed Amendments To The Principles Governing IPCC Work And It contains a 2-page "Principles Governing IPCC Work" and a 15 page Appendix with two Annexes. The cover page of the appendix calls it the "Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports," which, I understand include the Third Assessment Report scheduled for the year 2000. However, the heading of Appendix proposes to change the word "Procedures" to "Guidelines". That immediately suggests that the Appendix is not intended to be “legally binding" on the IPCC and its Working Groups, but merely an “Aim” that could be ignored or waived by the IPCC chairman, the IPCC Bureau, or others and they could do so without IPCC approval. That possibility or interpretation does not bode well for assuring that reports are “comprehensive, objective, open and transparent”. I understand that the term "Procedures" has been in use since the IPCC's ninth session in June 1993, and that the Second Assessment Report was successfully prepared and issued in accordance with them. The term "Procedures" was not a hindrance. I see no reason to change it to “Guidelines" and do not understand why it is even being proposed for adoption. Such a change The Honorable Stuart E. Eizenstat will immediately suggest a weakening of the standards for developing IPCC reports that are a mixed-bag of scientific, socio-economic, and technical assessments. Even the term "Procedures" is weak. "Rules" would be better. However, "Guidelines" is a far distance from even a hint of a rule. I urge that the U.S. delegation, at the IPCC, insist that term "Procedures" be retained when, and if, this document is considered by the IPCC. If you disagree, please explain why. This new document also states that it "Incorporates all Government comments received" by the Ad-Hoc Group as of August 21, 1998 and that: "Although compromise text has been inserted where several Governments have "Proposed deletions to the existing principles and Procedures are shown by strike- The above statements are simply not true. The enclosed note to this letter, which was prepared by my staff, demonstrates that there are a number of changes made to the "existing" 1993 Procedures that are not shown by strike-outs or double-underlines. Many are significant and substantive. By not showing such changes, one must presume that judgments were, in fact, made. I believe such a misleading process is unfair and that the U.S. delegation should oppose consideration of such a document when the IPCC convenes under its proposed agenda to address these Procedures. Again, if you disagree, please explain why. Additionally, it is my understanding that the IPCC and its past and present Chairmen have been saying that they wanted more involvement and input from the private sector which, I believe, is good. However, my staff's review of the changes to the existing Procedures and the proposals for the writing team for the Synthesis Report, fails to show how this new idea will be carried out. Some of the changes involving review by experts would seem to limit, not expand, private sector involvement and input. Please explain how the IPCC plans to achieve this objective and why the above documents apparently fail to carry it out. The second document (IPCC-XIV/Doc 8 (25-VIII-1998)) is about the proposed "TAR Synthesis Report". It is a submission by the IPCC Chairman, Dr. Robert T. Watson. Before commenting on this document, I note that item 11 of the enclosure to this letter shows that all of the paragraphs applicable to a Synthesis Report in the "existing" IPCC Procedures The Honorable Stuart E. Eizenstat "The IPCC synthesis report is intended to provide an overview and synthesis of the “Initial drafting of the IPCC synthesis report will be undertaken by the IPCC Chair As I have commented before, the proposed amendments to the existing IPCC Procedures are a significant, and I believe, an inappropriate and improper, departure from the "existing" Procedures. As stated by Dr. Watson, the new proposal calls for a 55 page report that would not be an "overview and synthesis of the Executive Summaries and the Summaries for Policymakers of the Working Groups". Instead, Dr. Watson states that 45 pages are "to highlight the key policy-relevant findings in the form of providing scientific and technical information to a short series of policy-relevant scientific questions that are mostly not WG-specific." He then lists thirteen questions which, upon review, are clearly not all “scientific” questions (e.g. questions 7, 8 and 10). Despite this serious concern, Dr. Watson wants to abandon totally line-by-line approval by governments and participating organizations of these 55 pages, including the 45 pages focusing on such questions. He suggests, for the first time, three new alternative approaches to line-byline approval,, saying that he “polled" the IPCC Bureau Members and found that "the majority believes" that the IPCC Governments should adopt approaches 1 or 3. However, none of the "approaches" he suggests conform to the "existing" Procedures or to the proposed amendments to those Procedures that are applicable to a Synthesis Report. None have apparently been considered even by the Ad-Hoc Group. The timing of the Synthesis Report is such that issues such as these do not need to be resolved at the next session of the IPCC. The questions and the process need further vetting in an open and transparent manner. That has not occurred in the IPCC. It certainly has not occurred in the United States. Indeed, you have yet to answer my questions about these matters, which included requests for a copy of the "proposed questions" circulated earlier this year by the IPCC Chairman or Secretariat and the U.S. delegation's comments thereon, as well as any questions proposed by the U.S. I think it is fair to say few in Congress or the public are even aware of these matters or their significance. Your Department and the Administration have not sought public or |